Sun’s IPSO Transgender Shame

[Update at end of post]

Regular Zelo Street readers may remember the appalling slur doled out by the Sun’s grouchy contrarian pundit Rod Liddle to Labour’s then prospective Parliamentary candidate Emily Brothers, who is blind and transgendered, last December. Liddle, whose departure from the editor’s chair at the BBC Radio 4 Today programme came as a great relief to all those who wished it had happened earlier, was trying to be funny. And failing.

His exhibition of bigotry was as brief as it was straightforward: “Emily Brothers is hoping to become Labour’s first blind, transgendered MP. She’ll be standing at the next election in the constituency of Sutton and Cheam … Thing is though ... being blind, how did she know she was the wrong sex?” Laugh? I thought I’d never start. On Emily’s behalf, Trans Media Watch (TMW) complained about Liddle’s column.

And this is where the sheer arrogance of the press comes through: although the Sun allowed Emily Brothers a column in which to reply, and issued an apology from Liddle, “The newspaper accepted that the comment was tasteless, but denied that it was prejudicial or pejorative. It did not accept that the columnist had criticised Ms Brothers … rather, it had been a clumsy attempt to seek humour”.

What the Sun also declined to accept was that they had blatantly breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editor’s Code of Practice, which states “The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability”. So what happened next?

TMW Chair Jenny Kermode: “IPSO required us to negotiate with The Sun for a minimum of 28 days first, but it soon became obvious that The Sun saw no reason to negotiate, initially claiming that the code it signed up to should not cover its columnists. We were also concerned by The Sun attempting to introduce third parties into the process, and then criticise us to those third parties. Talking about a complainant in this way is a clear attempt to intimidate them”.

Helen Belcher of TMW added: “About half of The Sun’s initial response to IPSO was attacking us and alleging ulterior motives. IPSO should be concerned that newspapers are attempting to intimidate complainants, especially when they insist on an initial 28 day mediation period. It is disappointing that IPSO has failed to address this important aspect despite us both mentioning it in the complaint and asking for the lack of comment in the ruling to be reviewed”.

And the IPSO verdict? “Regardless of the columnist’s intentions, this was not a matter of taste; it was discriminatory and therefore unacceptable under the terms of the Code … The complaint was upheld”. Yes folks, not even IPSO was prepared to wipe the Sun’s backside over such a blatant code breach. But the paper’s behaviour is worrying.

Intimidation of complainants is out of order. Claiming their pundits are somehow exempt from the Editor’s Code is equally so. And trying to wriggle out of saying sorry just makes it worse. I look forward to seeing the explanation put forward by managing editor Stig Abell and PR Dylan Sharpe - If there is one.

[UPDATE 1330 hours: the press' handling of Trans issues does not seem to be improving over time. At the suggestion of a regular reader, Zelo Street readers are reminded of the role of the Daily Mail's tedious and unfunny churnalist Richard Littlejohn in the sad saga of trans schoolteacher Lucy Meadows, who ultimately took her own life.

The attitude of Rod Liddle and his paper suggests little has changed in their understanding of Trans issues - or, perhaps, that should be the understanding that is transmitted to readers]